The End Of Contractor Immunity, But At What Future Cost?
June 18, 2008, Matthew Good According to today’s Independent, the United States has agreed to end the legal immunity enjoyed by private contractors from Iraqi law as a condition within the agreement that is currently being negotiated between the US and Iraq.
Despite this caveat, I am still against the agreement currently being negotiated as it would still allow the United States the use of 58 different bases in Iraq, the ability to carry out military operations without Iraqi government authority, and the continued legal immunity enjoyed by US military personnel.
There are also other questions that have to be asked. First, will the removal of legal immunity for contractors be retroactive so that past transgressions can be prosecuted? And, secondly, will it apply to those in the direct employ of the US State Department?
This little symbol lets you @ another comment
If by agreeing to a retroactive aspect to this agreement, it would bring Blackwater into the fray, then I suspect that the Bush administration would avoid that. If the contractors are working for the US, and while in Iraq break Iraqi law, is the US not partially responsible? If you hire a hitman and they get the job done - you’re guilty of murder too.
Nice of George to push this through as he exits out the back door…..
I hope if this does go through that the next president decides to pull out of this agreement.
[quoteFirst, will the removal of legal immunity for contractors be retroactive so that past transgressions can be prosecuted? And, secondly, will it apply to those in the direct employ of the US State Department?.[/quote]
#1. No.
#2. Yes, but only contractors in their employ.
I assume you are being funny with those questions since you of all people know they are absurd. However, those who perhaps aren’t as knowledgeable as some of us in foreign policies, US Government and law, may believe they are legitimate questions. Since many on this site are not US residents and may not know our laws or government, readers may be mislead and think that now contractors could or will unfairly be pursued and prosecuted for something that happened in the past.
Please, let not your heart be troubled, the US is not Nazi Germany. United States citizens, contractors, businesses, etc. are all protected and safe from ex post facto laws. In a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution such as the United States and many western countries, ex post facto legislation is prohibited. Those of us who are US citizens are proud and embrace the foresight of the generations of leaders before us that made this country free and democratic. In the United States, citizens are free from the risk of ever criminalizing actions that were legal when committed.
Thanks to the freedom of this great nation, the answer to Matt’s question (both questions are one in the same) is, “NO”.
“Please, let not your heart be troubled, the US is not Nazi Germany. United States citizens, contractors, businesses, etc. are all protected and safe from ex post facto laws.”
Why would immunity for US contractors, thus allowing them to commit heinous crimes without legal consequences, not be troubling?
I meant to say “retroactive immunity” and “thus allowing them not to be held accountable for past crimes.”
You are missing the point. Forget the contractors. In a free democracy, in regards to this topic, the USA specifically, we are free from the communist type ex post facto laws. The ex post facto laws are a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society, period. You may not criminalize something today and then make it “retroactive”.
But you said that that’s not troubling. Why would you say that?
Making a law “retroacrive” would be extremely troubling. But we are protected from that in the USA. So it is not troubling.